Capitalism has a future, but like all systems it needs to evolve to keep up with the changing attitutudes and platitudes. I'm defining today's system (profit-above-all-else) as Capitalism 1.0. It's time we move to Capitalism 2.0 - where profit is the THIRD priority. Read more here: http://imnoexpert.com/profit/

I don't believe we can transition to socialism - the USA has made it a dirty word. This is a transition to a Capitalism that is a bit more conscientious. It's not socialism because profit, ownership, corporations etc continue to exist as they do today. There's no change in the economic model, just a shift in the priorities.

Excerpt: The debate is another example of the media’s paranoia-inducing distraction tactics that knows debate sells more papers than rational discussion.

Distract the public with pithy headlines so we don’t stop to question the REAL problem: How do we trust the profit-focused medical industry?

If you focus on the issue of trust you will start asking the REAL question: What would our world look like if Big Pharma and mass-media were Non-Profit, Social Enterprises focusing on the common good before profit?

This article just demonstrates a complete acceptance of the fact that success in capitalism is entirely/almost entirely based on luck. The fact that a small minority of people are successful within the system, most are not and it's the people who have been successful (due to luck) who support the system should really ring some alarm bells. It is the people who are lucky who are successful, who are few, and support the system. You support the system because you are lucky, and most people do not support the system.

Mind you, many have never been given the chance to try

This is the majority of people. The majority of people are not lucky, and they are not successful. But because you accept that your success is due to luck, you must accept that you 'deserve' your success no more than those people.

a good health care package

And healthcare is part of being successful. So most people, who 'deserve' it no less than you, are unlucky and do not get a good health care package. The only division is luck. And you think that's a good thing. You just think it's a good thing that people happen to

Sorry you think that. Luck, skills, passion, persistence - there are lots of requirements for success, but that's not what I'm talking about. My article was in response to a number of Capitalists who feel the coming evolution to a capitalist model that puts less emphasis on profit and more on social change is a THREAT to their way of life. I am attempting to show that that's not true. Real leaders will see this change as an opportunity to lead. Those that are only interested in maximizing profits above all else are dinosaurs. I've re-read it, and am not sure why you feel I'm talking about luck at all. I don't question or suggests WHY people are successful, I merely suggest that those that are should take a leadership position towards change. Thoughts?

I'm perfectly happy with the idea of capitalism attempting to carry out social change, though I don't see any diving force other than conscience to make that happen. And I don't think that's going to make anyone a dinosaur anytime soon.

I felt it was necessary to talk about luck because I thought that this article was unconsciously highlighting some of the flaws in capitalism. You're perfectly right, there is more than just the amount of money that your parents have that affects success. But these these character traits are no more a product of the individual. Not only is free will not absolute, but it does not exist at all. People are either made or fucked over by a series of events played out by unbelievably complex configurations of particles that inevitably create imprints on their own set of particles. And, assuming that everyone else's emergent 'consciousness ' also tells emotion, I don't think it is at all fair to punish certain people with harder or less satisfying lives than others. That includes the ghetto boy with anger issues who can't finish school and the rich kid who has never felt any purpose in life.

Of course, you are free to tinker around in the garage, trying to convince people of their duty to fight against the basic driving forces of their market (because even if you say to them that customers want charitable businesses, they are still just trying to make profit by responding) or you can start trying to find ways that allows for more equality of opportunity without forcing the economy as is to corrupt itself.

Yes, I think we're on the same page. I have issues with the profit-above-all aspect of capitalism, and look forward to us eventually moving to a resource-based economy. In the meantime I hope to influence a new generation of business leaders to take on more social enterprise type approaches to business building. They will do so alongside non-profits, NGOs and other great ideas. One group won't change the world, but a combination of all outlooks is, and has always been, what moves us forward.

Philosophically, none of this matters anyway - we are what we believe etc. I'm just tired of meeting people under 40 who carry the same money-based greed-based mantra of our parent's generation, despite the evidence everywhere you look of the short-sightedness of that approach.

I hope to provide an optimistic outlook (I am VERY optimistic about our future) and an alternative viewpoint. I don't blame anyone (or anything) for where we are, and i'm thankful and grateful to all the work that everyone has done up to today. Our world is better than it was, but has plenty of room to improve. Those who enjoy the status quo are in the way - and we need to crowd them out.

Please check out my site and help where you can - I appreciate your willingness to take on the arguments. We need minds like yours to carry us forward.With respect and thanks, Roger.

Why do the two have to be always mutually exclusive? Oh right - to keep us divided. The future will be a hybrid of the two ideologies. I call it Capitalism 2.0. Social Enterprise is a good example. We just move Profit down to the THIRD priority. Some elements of socialism are likely to be the first or second - well being of the eco-system, social assistance, etc. We are seeing scalable examples of this everywhere. We NEED profit (today) to motivate businesses to remain sustainable... so many "non profits" rely on handouts. We need a MERGER: We need efficiency and sustainability of the for-profit world WITH the social missions and ethical philosophies of the NON-profit world. Why can't we have both, working together? I'm starting a project to push for this: http://imnoexpert.com/peace/capitalism02/

Why do the two have to be always mutually exclusive? Oh right - to keep us divided. The future will be a hybrid of the two ideologies. I call it Capitalism 2.0. Social Enterprise is a good example. We just move Profit down to the THIRD priority. Some elements of socialism are likely to be the first or second - well being of the eco-system, social assistance, etc. We are seeing scalable examples of this everywhere. We NEED profit (today) to motivate businesses to remain sustainable... so many "non profits" rely on handouts. We need a MERGER: We need efficiency and sustainability of the for-profit world WITH the social missions and ethical philosophies of the NON-profit world. Why can't we have both, working together? I'm starting a project to push for this: http://imnoexpert.com/peace/capitalism02/